CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII
DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN
SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077
CASE NO.CC/377/13
Date of Institution:- 23.07.2013
Order Reserved on:- 22.03.2024
Date of Decision:- 19.09.2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
Kailash Kumar
S/o ShriMolhanLal,
R/o A-311, Raghubir Nagar
New Delhi - 110027
.….. Complainant
VERSUS
- M/s D.D. Motors Through its Manager
Sales Service Spares Authorised Dealer of
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
A-100, Mayapuri Industries Area, Phase-II,
New Delhi – 110064
- Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Regd. Office
1, Nelson Mandela Road Near Ambience Mall
VasantKunj, New Delhi - 110070
…..Opposite Parties
Suresh Kumar Gupta, President
- The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thathe has purchased economy radio taxi 2010 bearing registration no.DL1RT0917 from OP-1. He has received an information that OP-2 is giving Rs.6,000/- on the purchase of radio taxi to those who have commercial licences and badge under scheme of economy radio taxi 2010. He has fulfilled all the formalities for the refund of said amount with OP-1 but till date amount has not been received. He is entitled to receive the said amount with 10 times penalties and interest coupled with financial loss to the tune of Rs.1500/- per day. Hence, the complaint.
- OP-1 has filed the written statement with the averments that complainant has no cause of action to file complaint. The compliant is bad for non-joinder of parties as central government is the essential party to decide the issue regarding the refund of special excise duty charged on the vehicle. The complainant has purchased the taxi for commercial purposes so complainant is not a consumer. The compliant is time barred as same is filed after two years from the date of cause of action. The complainant has purchased the vehicle from the OP-1. The OP-1 has handed over all the documents required for obtaining the refund of special excise duty. The complainant was to fulfil the requirements within 5.5 months. The relevant para-1 of the sale policy bulletin says that "It is mandatory to file Taxi refund claim alongwith all the supporting documents, in perfect order, with the central Excise department in Gurgoan within six months of date of MUL invoice. Therefore, a claim if received at MUL after five and half months of date of corresponding MUL invoice, or any deficiency noticed in the claim documents is not rectified by the customer, within this time, it cannot be processed and filed by us within six months. Such claims may be rejected at your end and returned to the customer, with de explanation, under proper acknowledgement.”
- The OP-1 has been following the complainant to fulfil the formalities and to supply the documents in perfect order to process the claim with OP-2 but formalities were not completed within stipulated time. The clause C of the notification no.64/2003 – Central Excise issued by Haryana Government is as under:
"The manufacturer takes credit of the amount equal to the amount of duty paid in excess of that specified under this exemption, in the Account Current, maintained in terms of Part Vof the Excise manual of supplementary instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and thereafter files a claim for refund of the said amount of duty before the expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty on the said motor vehicle, with the deputy Commissioner of the Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case ma' be, having jurisdiction."
The complainant did not fulfil the requirement within the stipulated time so there is no fault on the part of OP-1. The allegations of the complainant are denied.
- OP-2 has filed the written statement to the effect that complainant has not paid any amount to OP-2 for the purchase of the vehicle so there is no privity of contract between them. The complaint is bad for misjoinder of the parties.OP-2 sells the vehicles to the dealers. The relationship with OP-2 is on Principal to Principal basis. There is no case against OP-2 as complainant has failed to set any case for deficiency of service/unfair trade practice on the part of OP-2. The relief claimed by the complainant falls outside the ambit of clause a to i of section 14 (1) of the Act. The allegations of the complainant are denied. The complainant has not suffered any financial loss due to the act on the part of OP-2. The complaint is baseless.
- The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein he has denied the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.
- The parties were directed to lead the evidence.
- The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of the complaint and placed reliance on the documents Ex.CW1/1 to 3.
- The OP-1 has filed the affidavit of Sh. Rajeev Dheer, in evidence, wherein he has corroborated the version of the written statement and placed reliance on the documents Ex.RW1/1 & 2.
- The OP-2did not put the appearance and filed the evidence and accordingly proceeded ex-parte on 03.06.2014.
- The parties have not appeared since long to address the arguments so case was fixed for orders on the basis of the age of the case.
- It is clear from the material on record that complainant has purchased radio taxi for commercial purposes. A person who buys the goods for resale or commercial purposes does not come within the ambit of “Consumer”. The complainant has nowhere alleged in the complaint that he has purchased the taxi for his livelihood. There is no pleading to this effect meaning thereby that the complainant has purchased the radio taxi for commercial purposes and this fact brings him out of the definition of consumer.
- The Annexure-R2 says that refund of special excise duty has to be claimed within 5.5 months i.e. within 6 months from the date of payment of duty on the vehicle by the manufacturer. The complainant has annexed the claim form and receipt duly attested by Notary Public on 12.07.2011. The complainant has failed to explain when these documents were submitted with OP-1 in order to claim the refund. There is nothing in the evidenceor in the complaint that when complainant has deposited the documents with OP-1 as documents were to be submitted within 6 months from the date of payment of duty by the manufacturer to the Government. In the absence of any evidence to the fact, the version of complaint cannot be relied upon that OP-1 has failed to give refund to him. The complainant has withhold the best evidence from the Commission which calls for adverse inference against him.
- There is nothing in the compliant how he has suffered financial losses of Rs.1500/- per day. In the absence of any evidence to this effect, the version that he has suffered losses for Rs.1500/- per day cannot be relied upon.
- The allegation that OP-1 has failed to provide documents for 3 months which led to the financial loss to him.There is no evidence that OP-1 has kept the document after registration of vehicle on 27.05.2011 with him. Mere bald allegation is not enough.
- The complainant has not come in direct contact with OP-2. OP-2 is a manufacturer. OP-1 is a dealer of OP-2. The radio taxi in question is sold by OP-1 to the complainant. The alleged refund of excise duty was not given by OP-1. There is no dealing between complainant and OP-2.There is no evidence how there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP-2. Mere bald allegation without any evidence is not enough.
- The entire discussion shows that complainant has failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of OP-2.
- The complainant has also failed to show that there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1.
- In view of above discussion, the complainant has failed to substantiate the allegations as set out in the complaint. No deficiency of service is found on the part of OPs and accordingly the complaint is dismissed.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 19.09.2024.
